TX601 Continuum of Care Board of Directors Meeting
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
11:30 am – 1:00 pm
United Way of Tarrant County Board Room, 1500 N. Main Second Floor Fort Worth, TX
Minutes
Attendees: Charlie Parker, Trevin Ware, Richard Hutchinson, Carla Storey, Kristy Hroch, Walter Taylor, Ted Blevins, JR Labbe, Sean Burton, Randy Clinton, James Tapscott, Tim McKinney, Tia Thomas, Judge Carr
Staff Attendees: Cindy Crain, Carolyn Curry, Mario Puga, Connie Nieswiadomy
Opening Remarks: Meeting called to order at 11:45 by Randy Clinton. Randy: Introduced JR Labbe; called for board vote for newest member Naomi Burney (SP?) to replace outgoing member Barbara Holstead. Nomination approved.
Approval of Minutes: Call to approve June 11, 2014 Continuum of Care Board Meeting Minutes. One change noted by Walter Taylor, minutes approved.
Continuum of Care Policies and Procedures: Randy introduced policy and procedure manual. Announced there have been several revisions and the link is on website for public review. The document has been approved in past, board only making changes today, and won’t review entire document.
Randy received one question prior to meeting and has been reviewed by a subcommittee. Much content in document directly from HUD, has been sent to all agencies for comments; got none.
Cindy Crain: Described basic structure of document, stated revisions are an ongoing process and many components were previously approved by board; received technical assistance from state for preparation. Document will be baseline / benchmark governance for the CoC in regards to implementing the grant, guidance on how to prioritize clients with written standards from grant source, program planning, and setting performance measures. There are substantial HMIS procedures being rewritten and updated by HUD; will marry those documents once complete.
Cindy: TDHCA wanted to see outline of CoC Governance policy for ESG purposes. Majority from preapproved CoC charter. Difference is CoC General Membership; will need to appoint secretary, need to have an annual call for members. Will review business structure of CoC annually.
James Tapscott – to clarify, in the fall meetings, we decide what to present to the general membership in January; the following meetings we can respond to what the general membership said.
Randy – We will need have to have an annual meeting.
Cindy – The policy says we are to have an annual meeting with the agenda on online. Need to strike “results” sentence from policy. Don’t need to add that part.
Randy – We still need to hear results.
JR Labbe – We just don’t need to state when we hear them.
Cindy – The results of an annual meeting shall be communicated to general membership and Board of Directors.
Randy – Let’s back up to page 8 of the policy regarding a secretary. What does charter say?
Cindy – It is cut and pasted from the Charter.
Randy – Could we ask a TCHC staff person to do minutes, since we are here for short and focused amount of time?
Cindy – The job of the secretary is to ensure the staff takes minutes.
Randy – Can the board appoint staff to be the secretary?
JR – Not wise, needs to be a board member so they will be vested to make sure it happens; the secretary also maintains the roster.
Randy – The main role is to scribe, done by staff not secretary.
Cindy – The role goes beyond scribe, they maintain the roster, manage application forms, files, conflict of interest. It is important to have separate from staff.
Randy – We will address when it’s time to elect officers again.
Cindy – CoC Governance, voted on most of the sections already. Need to document the actions against poor performance for ESG & CoC program grants. Must describe what we will do to monitor and help low performance. This policy just describes what we may do if we find poor performance
Randy – We need TA before reduction of funds when poor performance is discovered.
Cindy – that is described in our monitoring and evaluation policy, describe process – quarterly, evaluation, APR, score cards; mid term; etc. Yes, we will provide TA before reduction of funds.
Sean Burton – Is TA part of a performance improvement plan?
Cindy – We have no formal process for CoC for findings, only have the scorecard. We will work with agencies that have issues – look for HMIS issues, other issues to help with numbers. We want everyone to be functioning at the highest level possible.
Sean – Will we be provided with a quarterly TA report? We will need a specific timeline of TA – how long do we help, when the program must show progress, how many quarters do they get help.
JR – There is coaching, an improvement plan, then defund.
Sean – Then we can then say every chance has been given to agency prior to defunding.
Cindy – We need item 4 to indicate methods of the action plan. I can draft and take to CoC Planning Council, scorecard will be evidence that TA didn’t work; we could have additional documentation to show what we did.
James – Is there anywhere in here that constitutes poor performance?
Cindy – Not meeting HUD/CoC performance targets.
Randy – When will this go into effect?
Cindy – Much of the plan already is.
Randy – What about the entire plan and the deallocation piece?
Cindy – This is how we do it now, just wasn’t written down yet. The new component we just wrote will start within the next few months, based on funding cycles. Documentation of TA not until the 2015 grant.
Randy – Asked for public comment
Patricia Ward – Is this for ESG funded programs?
Cindy – That is separate and in the ESG section.
Cheryl – Do these performance standards apply to city ESG programs?
Cindy – ESG programs will explain to the CoC how they deallocate. Our policy for ESG will be from TDHCA as state recipient.
Patricia Ward – You don’t expect us to tell you how we plan to deal with our subrecipients?
Cindy – Just communicate your process, it is your business how to deobligate.
Randy – It’s informational sharing, not approval.
Patricia – I want to make sure agencies understand that.
Randy – Next item page 33, prioritization for TH/RRH, a lot alike just for different populations.
Cindy – This section difficult to understand until after hearing the DOPS presentation; this is generic as possible, how we deal with a family that presents homeless. We will look first for diversion to prevent emergency shelter; will have CAS support; if they have to stay in shelter, we will use HAF tool to indicate when we engage a family – they often solve problem on their own. This says no later than 2 weeks in shelter.
Randy – Is this for just shelter or all programs?
Cindy – Shelter. RRH program is the referred to agency, would not need to complete. Done by shelter staff to refer to RRH.
Sean – why 14 days?
Cindy – I went to many CAS trainings at NAEH Conference and 14 days is a best practice, let people figure it out before giving out precious resources.
Tia Thomas– That is key for us, no later than 14 days.
Randy – Asked for public comment.
Tammy McGee – Can you clarify the HAF form? Does this make HAF a requirement to program entrance? It will alter agency paperwork to require DOPS/HAF.
Cindy – Yes eventually, but we aren’t there yet. CoC and ESG RRH programs will require uniform assessment tool.
Tammy – So if RRH does not pop up in HAF, does that disqualify them for RRH?
Cindy- The HAF is not an eligibility document, is an assessment to guide to best housing intervention, not a one size assessment to fit every family.
Randy – Understand it is not prioritizing.
Cindy –This is assessment not assigning.
Patricia- Who decides priority?
Cindy – I can explain better when we do the CAS presentation. The HAF is a uniform tool accessible by anyone, it provides a menu of possibilities for a particular client. We don’t have DOPS created for families yet, community hasn’t yet created for this type of housing resource. Section D is about individuals. If someone homeless a month, at some point someone will assess for housing need.
Randy – Let’s move to the DV section. Immediately refer client to DV shelter if DV issue arises. SH vs OSP, OSP not a 24 hour hotline, SH more appropriate.
Cindy – Strike OSP for assessment.
Randy – Page 36 is regarding youth. Carla is this ok?
Carla Storey – Yes.
Kristy Hroch – regarding DV, the DRC can assess through our Victim Advocate if client can’t get to the appropriate agency.
Cindy – We can get non-agency specific in the P&P. We can just say we get them to DV resource, important to say we address safety over DOPS.
JR – We should de-agency all since agencies / resources change; make generic.
Cindy – Will do for all, “youth assessment” not ACH.
Carla – Take out youth since 18-24 considered youth.
Cindy – I will make the change.
Randy – Page 55, terminating ESG assistance, I received no comments.
Richard Hutchinson – There is something on page 20 regarding household income, I thought we decided 60 days?
Cindy – This is related to CoC RRH, there is different rules for ESG versus CoC RRH. The difference is monthly assessment and monthly recertification. Language to be changed, meant to say recertify not reassess.
Tia – going back to DV, we are going to change to DV services? Will need to change follow up sentence.
Cindy – It will say referred to DV resources.
Tia – So DV providers will get to determine who comes in to shelter?
Cindy – We aren’t going into specific resources, we don’t want to modify longstanding hotline procedure.
Tia – We will refer back to CAS if client is not DV shelter eligible.
Randy – Any other comments? Are we ready to adopt with changes?
Richard moved to approve, Sean seconded. Board voted. Approved.
Approval of CoC TX601 Application for Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs PY2014 Emergency Solutions Grant Funds by Tarrant County Homeless Coalition
Randy – Didn’t we do this last time?
Cindy – We didn’t pass the ‘resolution’ at the last meeting.
Randy – Nothing in here that has been changed, is there a recommend to accept?
Ted Blevins moved to approve, James seconded. CoC Board Approved.
Approval of Board Resolution naming Tarrant County Homeless Coalition as the CoC TX 601 Collaborative Applicant for the PY2014 Continuum of Care Program
Randy: We must designate TCHC as the CoC collaborative applicant. Allows for TCHC to apply on behalf of the CoC.
CoC Board Approved.
Coordinated Assessment System Process Presentation
Cindy – CAS is a function mandated by the HEARTH Act. Reviewed strategies for CAS; HAF/DOPS; prioritization levels; new levels will be incorporated into current system in coming months.
Randy – Who will determine severity for new priority levels?
Cindy – It is being determined through the planning committee in late August. The goal is to have a recommendation at the October BoD meeting.
Randy – To be clear, the planning committee will make a recommendation to BoD?
Cindy – Yes.
Randy – Are there questions from board or public?
Patricia – Do we refer calls to our office to TCHC CAS?
Cindy – It depends. The program is about diversion, if someone call sand says they’re homeless, yes tell them to call. Sometimes a case manager can call us for clarification. If all agencies refer all calls then we will need to quadruple our staff.
Tammy – The new DOPS chart is not in the notice, but is an adaptation of notice?
Cindy – It is a simplified chart from HUD.
Tammy – Can we change the chart, don’t have to use it?
Cindy – The chart has been adopted for CoC PSH beds, it is what the HUD notice says.
Tammy – Can we add to it?
Cindy – We can make it more strict but not less. Our community has to develop what severity means. We have latitude in what severity means.
Collaborative Applicant Quarterly Report
Randy – Take the QPR with you and review, return comments to Randy or Cindy.
Cindy – Please look at chronic and homeless veteran numbers. Prioritization is working on targeted populations. The numbers are down. DOPS is making difference in 2 months’ time, there is a direct impact.
HMIS Governance Committee Report
Roddy – There are 3 points: Social Solutions had an upgrade, all went smoothly. Staff trainings occurred and more are happening. HMIS policy and procedures are waiting on HUD guidance, will be helping as soon as get guidance.
Don Shisler – Is there progress on a meeting to patch the two systems on HMIS?
Cindy – Not yet?
Randy – Once ESG is going, then we’ll have time to move forward. Working towards ETO & Client Track on possibility of communicating back and forth.
Discussion of future agenda items
Randy – Other communities are dealing with the same issues we have. Others CoCs meet monthly, we don’t. Next meeting is October 8, we don’t know what will happen with CoC application, it should be out soon. CPRC won’t happen before then. Review process needs to be as long as possible.
Public Comment
Randy – Called for public comment.
Jason Hall – ESG applications were turned in last week. The CPRC will meet here next to review 7 applications, hear 5 minute presentations from applicants. Is an opportunity for the CPRC to ask questions, the deliberative process will take place on August 22nd to make the final decision. Have $400,000 to allocate, $1 million in requests. We will wear more proposals than able to approve.
Cheryl – Who is on CPRC? Anyone from Arlington?
CPRC committee raised their hands. Some prior committee had to recuse due to conflict of interest.
Jason – The CPRC meeting is an open process, anyone can stay and listen to presentations
CoC Board Meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m., next meeting scheduled for October 8 2014.